Latest research indicates that global warming could have another unwanted spin-off – it may spur the formation of kidney stones.
Dehydration, particularly in warmer climes and higher temperatures, will only exacerbate this effect. Consequently, the prevalence of stone disease may increase, along with the costs of treatment.
Using published data bearing on temperature-dependence of stone disease, researchers applied predictions of temperature increase to determine the impact of global warming on the incidence and cost of kidney stone disease.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated significant increases in temperature by 2050.
These findings were presented at the ongoing 103rd Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Urological Association.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Clearing the Air: Aviation Exec Tries to Go Green
Virgin Atlantic Airlines owner Sir Richard Branson is placing his latest bet on biofuels, hoping to one day power commercial aircraft with something other than petroleum
Branson, who is known for his competitive spirit, made headlines recently after turning to the United States and Boeing to buy 15 787's to replace some of his Airbus fleet.
While the deal made plenty of money for Boeing, $2.8 billion, it comes with a promise to "go green."
In the last 25 years, the amount of jet fuel used in this country has more than doubled to more than 70 million gallons a day.
It is expensive, and the vast majority of it comes from overseas. But Branson is convinced that this could change.
He and Boeing are exploring environmentally friendly biofuel and plan to conduct a test run with a 747 by the end of next year.
"We're confident that we can fly a plane in 12 months time using biofuels and having zero emissions," Branson said.
General Electric Engineers, who design engines for Boeing, are already testing a number of potential biofuel sources like corn, algae, switchgrass and even newspaper.
Drivers are already turning to alternative fuels such as vegetable oil to power their vehicles. Branson's venture will be decidedly more high-tech.
And the challenges are substantial -- chief among them is finding a fuel that doesn't freeze at high altitudes.
ABC aviation analyst John Nance said it is not certain a biofuel can be developed with enough power to fly a jet.
"The danger is that after a lot of research, we are going to find that we are still going to need to have a large amount of petroleum, basically fossil fuel, in addition to some of the bio-fuel to make this work," he said.
With the rising cost of oil and the growing pressure to reduce carbon emissions, Branson says the industry has to do something.
And Nance agrees that while Branson's goal of flying a commercial flight on biofuel in two years may be a reach, at least he's reaching.
"Up until now, all of our discussion of biofuel and aviation has been someday, sometime, someway," Nance said. "It is thrilling to see heavyweights like this get involved on the launching pad."
Branson, who is known for his competitive spirit, made headlines recently after turning to the United States and Boeing to buy 15 787's to replace some of his Airbus fleet.
While the deal made plenty of money for Boeing, $2.8 billion, it comes with a promise to "go green."
In the last 25 years, the amount of jet fuel used in this country has more than doubled to more than 70 million gallons a day.
It is expensive, and the vast majority of it comes from overseas. But Branson is convinced that this could change.
He and Boeing are exploring environmentally friendly biofuel and plan to conduct a test run with a 747 by the end of next year.
"We're confident that we can fly a plane in 12 months time using biofuels and having zero emissions," Branson said.
General Electric Engineers, who design engines for Boeing, are already testing a number of potential biofuel sources like corn, algae, switchgrass and even newspaper.
Drivers are already turning to alternative fuels such as vegetable oil to power their vehicles. Branson's venture will be decidedly more high-tech.
And the challenges are substantial -- chief among them is finding a fuel that doesn't freeze at high altitudes.
ABC aviation analyst John Nance said it is not certain a biofuel can be developed with enough power to fly a jet.
"The danger is that after a lot of research, we are going to find that we are still going to need to have a large amount of petroleum, basically fossil fuel, in addition to some of the bio-fuel to make this work," he said.
With the rising cost of oil and the growing pressure to reduce carbon emissions, Branson says the industry has to do something.
And Nance agrees that while Branson's goal of flying a commercial flight on biofuel in two years may be a reach, at least he's reaching.
"Up until now, all of our discussion of biofuel and aviation has been someday, sometime, someway," Nance said. "It is thrilling to see heavyweights like this get involved on the launching pad."
Global Warming Health Threats
Devastating heat waves sweeping across continents. Poisonous plants producing more potent toxins. Air quality plummeting on summer days. Disease-carrying insects swarming mountain villages.These scenarios aren't the recipe for a summer disaster movie. They're some of the widespread health consequences caused by global warming. And they're happening right now, all over the world. (For examples of climate-related health effects and what's being done to cope with them, explore the map at the right.)
Scientists say that as earth's thermostat continues to climb, human health problems will only become more frequent. The threats range from emerging tropical diseases to life-threatening temperatures to an increase in allergies and asthma.
Feeling the Impact
Here are some examples of what's already happening due to global warming:
In the summer of 2003, an intense heat wave was blamed for an estimated 35,000 deaths across large swaths of Europe. A study says that global warming has doubled the likelihood of heat waves of this magnitude.
Scientists found in 2008 that poison ivy vines have grown 10 times denser near Savannah, Ga., over the last 20 years. Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes poison ivy to grow larger and produce stronger irritants.
Six young men and boys were killed by fatal parasites in 2007 at Lake Havasu, Ariz., after they swam in water infested with a heat-loving amoeba. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expect more of these illnesses as global temperatures rise.
Mosquitoes that carry malaria were found at never-before-seen elevations on Mount Kenya in 2006. As temperatures rise, higher elevations become more hospitable for mosquitoes -- and more dangerous for local inhabitants.
Future health problems can also be expected from sea-level rise, increased flooding and stronger storms, among other climate-related threats.
Action Needed Now
There is still time to avert the worst of the health threats by taking aggressive action now to cut global warming pollution. Even so, health care systems should begin preparing so that communities can be protected as temperatures rise.
Local strategies already in the works include heat-wave warning systems and response plans for cities, improved infrastructure in vulnerable coastal areas, and green buildings that stay cool and save energy. But a greater local, national and international understanding of the health risks is needed. There's no time to wait.
NRDC is working to research the links between global warming and health so that the public and policymakers can better understand the risks. We're also taking steps to prepare the public health system and promote solutions that will offer added health benefits by reducing both greenhouse gases and toxic pollution
Scientists say that as earth's thermostat continues to climb, human health problems will only become more frequent. The threats range from emerging tropical diseases to life-threatening temperatures to an increase in allergies and asthma.
Feeling the Impact
Here are some examples of what's already happening due to global warming:
In the summer of 2003, an intense heat wave was blamed for an estimated 35,000 deaths across large swaths of Europe. A study says that global warming has doubled the likelihood of heat waves of this magnitude.
Scientists found in 2008 that poison ivy vines have grown 10 times denser near Savannah, Ga., over the last 20 years. Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes poison ivy to grow larger and produce stronger irritants.
Six young men and boys were killed by fatal parasites in 2007 at Lake Havasu, Ariz., after they swam in water infested with a heat-loving amoeba. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expect more of these illnesses as global temperatures rise.
Mosquitoes that carry malaria were found at never-before-seen elevations on Mount Kenya in 2006. As temperatures rise, higher elevations become more hospitable for mosquitoes -- and more dangerous for local inhabitants.
Future health problems can also be expected from sea-level rise, increased flooding and stronger storms, among other climate-related threats.
Action Needed Now
There is still time to avert the worst of the health threats by taking aggressive action now to cut global warming pollution. Even so, health care systems should begin preparing so that communities can be protected as temperatures rise.
Local strategies already in the works include heat-wave warning systems and response plans for cities, improved infrastructure in vulnerable coastal areas, and green buildings that stay cool and save energy. But a greater local, national and international understanding of the health risks is needed. There's no time to wait.
NRDC is working to research the links between global warming and health so that the public and policymakers can better understand the risks. We're also taking steps to prepare the public health system and promote solutions that will offer added health benefits by reducing both greenhouse gases and toxic pollution
Asia set to become biggest climate change driver
Asia's share of global greenhouse gas emissions could rise to more than 40 percent by 2030, making it the world's main driver of climate change, experts warned Tuesday.
The most populous continent with the fastest-growing economies in China and India already accounts for a third of world emissions of gases blamed for warming weather, including carbon dioxide, Asian Development Bank President Haruhiko Kuroda told a conference in Manila.
Its share of discharges from energy use has tripled over the past 30 years, he said.
Asia also stands out as the most vulnerable region to climate change.
In addition to water shortages, crop yields in Central and South Asia could drop by 30 percent by 2050, and coastal cities including Bangkok, Jakarta, Karachi, Manila, Mumbai and Shanghai will be vulnerable to flooding or damage from unpredictable weather patterns, the ADB said.
Within this century, people living in coastal Bangladesh, Maldives and Tuvalu in the southwest Pacific may be forced to flee because of rising sea levels, the Manila-based lender said.
"Climate change has this characteristic of exacerbating the existing stress in a region ... which is afflicted by poverty and a lack of infrastructure," said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Climate scientists have urged rich countries to reduce emissions by between 25 percent and 40 percent by 2020 to avoid the worst effects of warming.
They say warming weather will lead to widespread droughts, floods, higher sea levels and worsening storms.
Even a 3.6-degree Fahrenheit (2-degree Celsius) temperature rise could subject up to 2 billion people to water shortages by 2050 and threaten extinction for 20 percent to 30 percent of the world's species, according to a 2007 report by the intergovernmental panel, a U.N. network of 2,000 scientists.
Kuroda said it was imperative to step up efforts to put the region on a path of low-carbon growth.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in a video address to the conference, called on Asian countries to help achieve a new global warming agreement in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December. Ban said he wants to see an "ambitious, comprehensive and fair" deal.
U.N. climate delegates in Bonn completed a draft Friday of a new agreement containing gaps and competing ideas that await decisions by political leaders.
The rift more clearly exposed differences between industrial and emerging nations—and within those blocs—on the obligations of the 192 countries involved in the talks to control greenhouse gases.
The U.S. and China are the largest emitters, accounting for about half the world's carbon emissions. But neither country was part of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which called on 37 countries to cut carbon emissions by a total of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
Meanwhile, about 30 activists criticized the ADB for continuing to support coal-energy projects they say pollute the environment and contribute to climate change.
ADB officials say the bank funds very few coal power plants, which for some developing countries are a cheap energy source.
Kuroda said the ADB provided nearly $1.7 billion last year for projects with clean energy components like wind power in China and India, exceeding its $1 billion target.
The most populous continent with the fastest-growing economies in China and India already accounts for a third of world emissions of gases blamed for warming weather, including carbon dioxide, Asian Development Bank President Haruhiko Kuroda told a conference in Manila.
Its share of discharges from energy use has tripled over the past 30 years, he said.
Asia also stands out as the most vulnerable region to climate change.
In addition to water shortages, crop yields in Central and South Asia could drop by 30 percent by 2050, and coastal cities including Bangkok, Jakarta, Karachi, Manila, Mumbai and Shanghai will be vulnerable to flooding or damage from unpredictable weather patterns, the ADB said.
Within this century, people living in coastal Bangladesh, Maldives and Tuvalu in the southwest Pacific may be forced to flee because of rising sea levels, the Manila-based lender said.
"Climate change has this characteristic of exacerbating the existing stress in a region ... which is afflicted by poverty and a lack of infrastructure," said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Climate scientists have urged rich countries to reduce emissions by between 25 percent and 40 percent by 2020 to avoid the worst effects of warming.
They say warming weather will lead to widespread droughts, floods, higher sea levels and worsening storms.
Even a 3.6-degree Fahrenheit (2-degree Celsius) temperature rise could subject up to 2 billion people to water shortages by 2050 and threaten extinction for 20 percent to 30 percent of the world's species, according to a 2007 report by the intergovernmental panel, a U.N. network of 2,000 scientists.
Kuroda said it was imperative to step up efforts to put the region on a path of low-carbon growth.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in a video address to the conference, called on Asian countries to help achieve a new global warming agreement in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December. Ban said he wants to see an "ambitious, comprehensive and fair" deal.
U.N. climate delegates in Bonn completed a draft Friday of a new agreement containing gaps and competing ideas that await decisions by political leaders.
The rift more clearly exposed differences between industrial and emerging nations—and within those blocs—on the obligations of the 192 countries involved in the talks to control greenhouse gases.
The U.S. and China are the largest emitters, accounting for about half the world's carbon emissions. But neither country was part of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which called on 37 countries to cut carbon emissions by a total of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
Meanwhile, about 30 activists criticized the ADB for continuing to support coal-energy projects they say pollute the environment and contribute to climate change.
ADB officials say the bank funds very few coal power plants, which for some developing countries are a cheap energy source.
Kuroda said the ADB provided nearly $1.7 billion last year for projects with clean energy components like wind power in China and India, exceeding its $1 billion target.
Brown proposes £60bn climate fund
Prime Minister Gordon Brown wants to set up a £60bn annual fund to help poor countries deal with climate change.
He hopes it will break the deadlock over who will pay developing nations to adapt to the changing climate and who will help them obtain clean technology.
Countries must reach a binding global agreement on carbon emission cuts at December's Copenhagen summit, he said.
The summit is seen as the last chance to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto agreement, which expires in 2012.
Environment and anti-poverty campaigners welcomed Mr Brown's remarks but said he and other leaders must deliver real financial support not merely "empty rhetoric".
Finance is one of the key sticking points in global negotiations, with poor nations demanding huge amounts of cash and rich nations reluctant to commit.
The UK figure is less than developing nations say they need - but at least it will provide a negotiating point in the coming G8 when the leaders of emerging nations will join for a special climate summit chaired by US President Barack Obama.
Some of the political blocks need to be cleared in this meeting if there is to be a new global deal at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen in December.
Mr Brown said: "Copenhagen is twenty-three weeks away. When historians look back on this critical moment, let them say, not that we were the generation that failed our children; but that we had the courage, and the will, to succeed."
'Act with vision'
Speaking in London, Mr Brown said leading industrialised economies must support developing nations most at risk from climate change to enable them to keep on growing while meeting their environmental obligations.
He suggested £60bn would be needed to help poor countries adjust to climate change, stressing the UK would pay "its fair share" towards this.
"Over recent years, the world has woken to the reality of climate change," he said.
"But the fact that is that we have not yet joined together to act against it.
"Copenhagen must be the moment we do so.
"If we act now, act together and act with vision and resolve, success at Copenhagen is within reach."
Money could be raised from selling carbon permits and from existing development aid budgets, although he said contributions from the latter should be limited.
The BBC's Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin said Mr Brown's efforts were designed to break the deadlock over who would pay for poorer countries to make the difficult transition to a low-carbon economy.
But Oxfam said at least $150bn a year was needed to protect poorer countries from climate change.
"The prime minister's proposal could give a welcome kick-start to negotiations if other leaders rise to the challenge," said chief executive Barbara Stocking.
"Ultimately, if catastrophe is to be avoided and the poorest people protected, we need more money and sooner."
Friends of the Earth said it welcomed the government's "recognition that finance is key to breaking the deadlock in the stalled UN talks," but added: "We have no chance of achieving the cuts required through the con of carbon offsetting."
Temperature rises
By putting a figure on the cost of climate change adjustment, Greenpeace said Gordon Brown was showing leadership but urged him to put "serious money" on the table when G8 leaders meet in Italy next month.
Lord Stern, who wrote a climate change report for the government in 2008, said Mr Brown's initiative was "timely" but countries getting money should be able to follow their own development agendas and not have them imposed.
Ministers should push for tougher targets that follow the science and not the politics
Simon Hughes, Lib Dems
The UK government is committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 and argues the rest of the world must follow suit if global temperature rises are to be restricted to 2 Celsius - above which is regarded dangerous.
"We cannot in good conscience plan for the world to exceed that limit," Mr Brown said.
Ministers say the legally-binding target puts the UK in the vanguard of international efforts on climate change.
But the Lib Dems said the UK's targets were not ambitious enough and its green credentials were undermined by the government's approval of new coal-fired power stations and airport runways.
"People in the UK and around the world should do all they can to tackle climate change, but we need the government to lead by example," said the party's climate spokesman Simon Hughes.
"Ministers should push for tougher targets that follow the science and not the politics."
He hopes it will break the deadlock over who will pay developing nations to adapt to the changing climate and who will help them obtain clean technology.
Countries must reach a binding global agreement on carbon emission cuts at December's Copenhagen summit, he said.
The summit is seen as the last chance to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto agreement, which expires in 2012.
Environment and anti-poverty campaigners welcomed Mr Brown's remarks but said he and other leaders must deliver real financial support not merely "empty rhetoric".
Finance is one of the key sticking points in global negotiations, with poor nations demanding huge amounts of cash and rich nations reluctant to commit.
The UK figure is less than developing nations say they need - but at least it will provide a negotiating point in the coming G8 when the leaders of emerging nations will join for a special climate summit chaired by US President Barack Obama.
Some of the political blocks need to be cleared in this meeting if there is to be a new global deal at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen in December.
Mr Brown said: "Copenhagen is twenty-three weeks away. When historians look back on this critical moment, let them say, not that we were the generation that failed our children; but that we had the courage, and the will, to succeed."
'Act with vision'
Speaking in London, Mr Brown said leading industrialised economies must support developing nations most at risk from climate change to enable them to keep on growing while meeting their environmental obligations.
He suggested £60bn would be needed to help poor countries adjust to climate change, stressing the UK would pay "its fair share" towards this.
"Over recent years, the world has woken to the reality of climate change," he said.
"But the fact that is that we have not yet joined together to act against it.
"Copenhagen must be the moment we do so.
"If we act now, act together and act with vision and resolve, success at Copenhagen is within reach."
Money could be raised from selling carbon permits and from existing development aid budgets, although he said contributions from the latter should be limited.
The BBC's Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin said Mr Brown's efforts were designed to break the deadlock over who would pay for poorer countries to make the difficult transition to a low-carbon economy.
But Oxfam said at least $150bn a year was needed to protect poorer countries from climate change.
"The prime minister's proposal could give a welcome kick-start to negotiations if other leaders rise to the challenge," said chief executive Barbara Stocking.
"Ultimately, if catastrophe is to be avoided and the poorest people protected, we need more money and sooner."
Friends of the Earth said it welcomed the government's "recognition that finance is key to breaking the deadlock in the stalled UN talks," but added: "We have no chance of achieving the cuts required through the con of carbon offsetting."
Temperature rises
By putting a figure on the cost of climate change adjustment, Greenpeace said Gordon Brown was showing leadership but urged him to put "serious money" on the table when G8 leaders meet in Italy next month.
Lord Stern, who wrote a climate change report for the government in 2008, said Mr Brown's initiative was "timely" but countries getting money should be able to follow their own development agendas and not have them imposed.
Ministers should push for tougher targets that follow the science and not the politics
Simon Hughes, Lib Dems
The UK government is committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 and argues the rest of the world must follow suit if global temperature rises are to be restricted to 2 Celsius - above which is regarded dangerous.
"We cannot in good conscience plan for the world to exceed that limit," Mr Brown said.
Ministers say the legally-binding target puts the UK in the vanguard of international efforts on climate change.
But the Lib Dems said the UK's targets were not ambitious enough and its green credentials were undermined by the government's approval of new coal-fired power stations and airport runways.
"People in the UK and around the world should do all they can to tackle climate change, but we need the government to lead by example," said the party's climate spokesman Simon Hughes.
"Ministers should push for tougher targets that follow the science and not the politics."
US eases pressure on China over climate change targets
The US said today it would not demand that China commits to binding cuts in its greenhouse gas emissions, marking an important step towards agreement on a global treaty to fight climate change.
The move came at the end of the latest round of UN climate change talks involving 183 countries, which aim to produce a deal in Copenhagen in December.
Jonathan Pershing, head of the US delegation in Bonn, said developing countries – seeking to grow their economies and alleviate poverty – would instead be asked to commit to other actions. These include increasing energy efficiency standards and improving the take-up of renewable energy, but would not deliver specific reductions.
He said: "We're saying that the actions of developing countries should be binding, not the outcomes of those actions."
Only developed countries, including the US, would be expected to guarantee cuts. The pledge was included in a US blueprint for a climate change deal submitted to the Bonn meeting, which Pershing said was based on the need for rich countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050. The American plan, if approved, could replace the existing Kyoto protocol. The lack of any carbon targets for developing countries in the protocol was the reason the US never ratified it.
While such cuts were believed to be unrealistic in the new treaty, the first clear acceptance of that at the UN talks by the US is being seen as significant. EU officials said they were studying the US proposal.China and the US are the two biggest polluters in the world, making their positions on the deal critical.
In a separate submission to the meeting, China was among a group of developing countries that called on rich countries to cut emissions by 40% by 2020 on 1990 levels. According to the environmental group WWF, commitments made by developing countries so far add up only to about a 10% cut. Japan this week proposed an effective 8% cut in its emissions.
Observers see the 40% demand as unrealistic, suggesting the US move amounts to blinking first in the negotiations. But back-channel negotiations, revealed by the Guardian last month, showed the two countries are searching for a deal.
John Ashe, who chaired discussions at Bonn on how Kyoto targets could be extended, said many of the targets put forward could be revised as the Copenhagen deadline looms. "There is always an initial move and then a final move. I don't believe we're in the final stage yet," he said.
He said China should agree to take actions to control emissions that were measured and reported to the international community.
In Washington, Todd Stern, the state department's climate change envoy, said the US still expected China to move towards a cleaner economy. "We are expecting China to reduce their emissions very considerably compared to where they would otherwise be [with] a business as usual trajectory," he said.
At the end of the talks, the UN's top climate official said progress had been made. Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN framework convention on climate change, said: "A big achievement of this meeting is that governments have made it clearer what they want to see in the Copenhagen agreed outcome."
But green campaigners criticised the failure to resolve issues such as an overall target for 2020 emission reductions or concrete proposals on funding for poor countries to deal with global warming.Antonio Hill of Oxfam said: "The countries that created the nightmare are refusing to lift a finger to prevent it becoming a reality. Rich country delegates have spent two weeks talking but have done nothing on the issues that really matter. They may be kidding themselves they are working towards a deal but they are not kidding anyone else."
The move came at the end of the latest round of UN climate change talks involving 183 countries, which aim to produce a deal in Copenhagen in December.
Jonathan Pershing, head of the US delegation in Bonn, said developing countries – seeking to grow their economies and alleviate poverty – would instead be asked to commit to other actions. These include increasing energy efficiency standards and improving the take-up of renewable energy, but would not deliver specific reductions.
He said: "We're saying that the actions of developing countries should be binding, not the outcomes of those actions."
Only developed countries, including the US, would be expected to guarantee cuts. The pledge was included in a US blueprint for a climate change deal submitted to the Bonn meeting, which Pershing said was based on the need for rich countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050. The American plan, if approved, could replace the existing Kyoto protocol. The lack of any carbon targets for developing countries in the protocol was the reason the US never ratified it.
While such cuts were believed to be unrealistic in the new treaty, the first clear acceptance of that at the UN talks by the US is being seen as significant. EU officials said they were studying the US proposal.China and the US are the two biggest polluters in the world, making their positions on the deal critical.
In a separate submission to the meeting, China was among a group of developing countries that called on rich countries to cut emissions by 40% by 2020 on 1990 levels. According to the environmental group WWF, commitments made by developing countries so far add up only to about a 10% cut. Japan this week proposed an effective 8% cut in its emissions.
Observers see the 40% demand as unrealistic, suggesting the US move amounts to blinking first in the negotiations. But back-channel negotiations, revealed by the Guardian last month, showed the two countries are searching for a deal.
John Ashe, who chaired discussions at Bonn on how Kyoto targets could be extended, said many of the targets put forward could be revised as the Copenhagen deadline looms. "There is always an initial move and then a final move. I don't believe we're in the final stage yet," he said.
He said China should agree to take actions to control emissions that were measured and reported to the international community.
In Washington, Todd Stern, the state department's climate change envoy, said the US still expected China to move towards a cleaner economy. "We are expecting China to reduce their emissions very considerably compared to where they would otherwise be [with] a business as usual trajectory," he said.
At the end of the talks, the UN's top climate official said progress had been made. Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN framework convention on climate change, said: "A big achievement of this meeting is that governments have made it clearer what they want to see in the Copenhagen agreed outcome."
But green campaigners criticised the failure to resolve issues such as an overall target for 2020 emission reductions or concrete proposals on funding for poor countries to deal with global warming.Antonio Hill of Oxfam said: "The countries that created the nightmare are refusing to lift a finger to prevent it becoming a reality. Rich country delegates have spent two weeks talking but have done nothing on the issues that really matter. They may be kidding themselves they are working towards a deal but they are not kidding anyone else."
China now taking climate change seriously: Barroso
China, deemed vital to the fight against global warming, is now taking the issue of climate change "extremely seriously," EU Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso said Friday.
Meanwhile US President Barack Obama had effected a "sea-change" on environmental policy there, he said.
China had become "fully and constructively engaged in the international negotiations, while domestically it was pursuing very ambitious targets to reduce energy intensity by 20 percent under its current five-year plan," said Barroso in a speech to close the EU's Green Week.
He offered special congratulations to experts at Chinese Academy of Sciences for their "influential work on climate policy" adding that "we fully share your view that low-carbon development has to be the way forward."
The United States and China are the world's two largest emitters of greenhouse gases that cause global warming.
As a developing country China is not bound by the current Kyoto Protocol on climate change and says the bulk of the responsibility for emissions cuts lies with developed nations.
But it has pledged to play a constructive role in the climate negotiations in Copenhagen in December, while implementing domestic energy targets and developing alternative and clean energies.
Barroso said that "all countries except the very poorest will need to contribute" to the efforts to keep global warming down to two degrees centigrade, though with the developed countries taking the lead.
"While we are not there yet, the prospects for agreement at Copenhagen have brightened over the past year," he said.
Barroso's European Commission announced Wednesday that it would provide financing up to 50 million euros (70 million dollars) to help China build a coal-fired power plant equipped with new carbon storage technology to give it near-zero emissions.
Europe deems the carbon capture and storage technology, which is in its infancy, to be a key factor in fighting climate change, and a demonstration plant would be particularly significant in China, which produces and uses a massive amount of coal.
Barroso also said the world was paying abnormal attention to the machinations of the US government on climate change policy under President Barack Obama.
"President Obama?s personal commitment, both to domestic action and to a successful outcome in Copenhagen, has amounted to nothing less than a sea-change in the US position," he said
"His leadership means that the United States is now back at the table," Barroso added. "Rarely, perhaps, has the progress of US domestic legislation been so carefully monitored internationally."
The "American Clean Energy and Security Act" aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, while creating "green" jobs.
In Washington Friday, Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer predicted his party would have the 218 votes needed to ensure passage of historic legislation to battle global warming.
Barroso admitted he was ready to "put aside the normal conventions here and be very clear.
"We want the US to go as far and as fast as they can on climate change."
But above all, Europe wants the bill to succeed, he said.
Meanwhile US President Barack Obama had effected a "sea-change" on environmental policy there, he said.
China had become "fully and constructively engaged in the international negotiations, while domestically it was pursuing very ambitious targets to reduce energy intensity by 20 percent under its current five-year plan," said Barroso in a speech to close the EU's Green Week.
He offered special congratulations to experts at Chinese Academy of Sciences for their "influential work on climate policy" adding that "we fully share your view that low-carbon development has to be the way forward."
The United States and China are the world's two largest emitters of greenhouse gases that cause global warming.
As a developing country China is not bound by the current Kyoto Protocol on climate change and says the bulk of the responsibility for emissions cuts lies with developed nations.
But it has pledged to play a constructive role in the climate negotiations in Copenhagen in December, while implementing domestic energy targets and developing alternative and clean energies.
Barroso said that "all countries except the very poorest will need to contribute" to the efforts to keep global warming down to two degrees centigrade, though with the developed countries taking the lead.
"While we are not there yet, the prospects for agreement at Copenhagen have brightened over the past year," he said.
Barroso's European Commission announced Wednesday that it would provide financing up to 50 million euros (70 million dollars) to help China build a coal-fired power plant equipped with new carbon storage technology to give it near-zero emissions.
Europe deems the carbon capture and storage technology, which is in its infancy, to be a key factor in fighting climate change, and a demonstration plant would be particularly significant in China, which produces and uses a massive amount of coal.
Barroso also said the world was paying abnormal attention to the machinations of the US government on climate change policy under President Barack Obama.
"President Obama?s personal commitment, both to domestic action and to a successful outcome in Copenhagen, has amounted to nothing less than a sea-change in the US position," he said
"His leadership means that the United States is now back at the table," Barroso added. "Rarely, perhaps, has the progress of US domestic legislation been so carefully monitored internationally."
The "American Clean Energy and Security Act" aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, while creating "green" jobs.
In Washington Friday, Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer predicted his party would have the 218 votes needed to ensure passage of historic legislation to battle global warming.
Barroso admitted he was ready to "put aside the normal conventions here and be very clear.
"We want the US to go as far and as fast as they can on climate change."
But above all, Europe wants the bill to succeed, he said.
China's exit may leave India isolated on climate
The first signs of a break up in the G77 plus China grouping in the climate negotiations emerged at the Obama sponsored 20-country Major economies
Forum in Washington with South Korea breaking away from the developing and poor country block. The meeting called by the US to find a breakthrough in the climate talks saw the first palpable evidence that one of the most influential blocks with a a de-facto veto at the negotiations, could crack before or during the Copenhagen round in December 2009. Blog: Cong, BJP, Left and climate change The block led by India, China, Brazil and South Africa besides other countries has consistently thwarted attempts by the industrialized nations to dictate terms to the UN framework convention on climate change. It has played a singular role in ensuring that emerging and developing economies are not forced to take on economy-hurting emission reductions by groups like the EU or countries such as US, Japan and Australia. But at the MEF, South Korea broke away from the consensus within the G77 and offered to open its domestic actions to reduce emissions to international scrutiny -- a move that indirectly implied quantified targets to reduce emissions under international vigil. At the meeting, where US demanded that it be not asked to reduce emissions too quickly to begin with in the face of an economic recession, the pressure being built on other nations was visible, sources told TOI. The sources said that China too made ambiguous noises about such greenhouse gas reductions commitments -- something it and India have a well crafted and long standing coordinated position against. But it remained unclear, the sources said, if China was actually diverting from its earlier positions or if the Chinese stance was `lost in translation'. Indian officials, however, pointed out that the latest Chinese submissions to the UNFCCC -- the formal negotiating forum -- remained closely aligned to the Indian ones and stuck to the basic demands that G77 plus China has made for long -- funds and technologies to undertake a clean economic pathway and high emission reduction targets for industrialized countries responsible for the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere. One source in the Indian climate team pointed out that in earlier rounds of negotiations too symptoms of a crack in G77 had emerged. "The economies of many countries are dependent on or have strong linkages to industrialized countries. Within the G77 umbrella, there are differences that some industrialized countries and lobbies are trying to exploit," he said. A close observer of the negotiations from India pointed out that, as in all international negotiations, other economic interests could be used as leverage against more vulnerable nations of the G77 block and such `diplomatic and economic handle' would be employed with greater vigour as climate negotiations in December at Copenhagen near.
Forum in Washington with South Korea breaking away from the developing and poor country block. The meeting called by the US to find a breakthrough in the climate talks saw the first palpable evidence that one of the most influential blocks with a a de-facto veto at the negotiations, could crack before or during the Copenhagen round in December 2009. Blog: Cong, BJP, Left and climate change The block led by India, China, Brazil and South Africa besides other countries has consistently thwarted attempts by the industrialized nations to dictate terms to the UN framework convention on climate change. It has played a singular role in ensuring that emerging and developing economies are not forced to take on economy-hurting emission reductions by groups like the EU or countries such as US, Japan and Australia. But at the MEF, South Korea broke away from the consensus within the G77 and offered to open its domestic actions to reduce emissions to international scrutiny -- a move that indirectly implied quantified targets to reduce emissions under international vigil. At the meeting, where US demanded that it be not asked to reduce emissions too quickly to begin with in the face of an economic recession, the pressure being built on other nations was visible, sources told TOI. The sources said that China too made ambiguous noises about such greenhouse gas reductions commitments -- something it and India have a well crafted and long standing coordinated position against. But it remained unclear, the sources said, if China was actually diverting from its earlier positions or if the Chinese stance was `lost in translation'. Indian officials, however, pointed out that the latest Chinese submissions to the UNFCCC -- the formal negotiating forum -- remained closely aligned to the Indian ones and stuck to the basic demands that G77 plus China has made for long -- funds and technologies to undertake a clean economic pathway and high emission reduction targets for industrialized countries responsible for the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere. One source in the Indian climate team pointed out that in earlier rounds of negotiations too symptoms of a crack in G77 had emerged. "The economies of many countries are dependent on or have strong linkages to industrialized countries. Within the G77 umbrella, there are differences that some industrialized countries and lobbies are trying to exploit," he said. A close observer of the negotiations from India pointed out that, as in all international negotiations, other economic interests could be used as leverage against more vulnerable nations of the G77 block and such `diplomatic and economic handle' would be employed with greater vigour as climate negotiations in December at Copenhagen near.
China and India show rapid increase in global warming emissions
Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions continue to rise with a mix of old and new polluters, according to the Little Green Data Book 2006, launched today on the occasion of the Fourteenth Session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-14). An annual publication of the World Bank, according to this year's edition, CO2 emissions worldwide have now topped 24 billion metric tons (the most recent comprehensive data are for 2002), an increase of 15 percent compared to the 1992 levels.
google_protectAndRun("render_ads.js::google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
The rapidly expanding economies of China and India are showing a swift increase in CO2 emissions. China, which is already the second largest polluter, has increased its emissions by 33 percent between 1992 and 2002, while India's emissions have grown 57 percent in the same period. This trend will likely continue as economic activity grows. Such an increase in emissions has taken place despite improvements in energy efficiency by China in the last decade. In 1992, a dollar of GDP was associated with the production of 4.8Kg of CO2. In 2002, every dollar of GDP was associated with 2.5Kg of CO2. Still, CO2 emissions stem mainly from rich countries, with the United States contributing 24 percent of total emissions and the countries of the European Monetary Union contributing 10 percent. But the share of developing country contributions to CO2 emissions is rapidly increasing. From 2000 to 2002, global CO2 emissions increased by 2.5 percent annually, and about two-thirds of this increase came from low and middle income countries. According to Steen Jorgensen, Acting Vice-President for Sustainable Development at the World Bank, "This reality shows us that we need to find creative ways to engage all major economies of the world to solve a global problem such as climate change. The recently launched Investment Framework for Clean Energy and Development is an attempt by the World Bank to contribute in this direction."
Jorgensen was referring to a new approach — the Clean Energy & Development: Towards an Investment Framework — recently endorsed by the Governors of the World Bank designed to boost energy investments while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. "All countries are vulnerable to climate change," says Warren Evans, Environment Director, World Bank, "but the poorest countries are the most exposed, and have the least means to adapt to it. Climate change may hamper efforts to reduce poverty in agriculture-dependent countries in Africa and low-lying coastal areas. Climate proofing development initiatives is an urgent need in order to avoid human disasters." CO2 emissions stem mainly from the combustion of fossil fuels. The energy sector accounts for about 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and the agricultural sector for most of the remaining 20 percent (source: Clean Energy and Development: Towards an Investment Framework, the World Bank, April 23, 2006). "Coal is by far the main source of energy for electricity generation," says Jamal Saghir, Director Energy & Water, World Bank. "The relevance of coal has increased over time, particularly in low-income countries where the share of electricity generated by coal has shifted from 41 percent in 1990 to 46 percent in 2003. In China, the use of coal has increased from 71 percent in 1990 to 79 percent in 2003. In India, the increment has been from 65 percent to 68 percent." Energy use per capita is highest in rich countries, which consume on average 11 times more energy per person than low income countries. High income countries in total use 51 percent of the world's energy production, followed by East Asia and Pacific, 18 percent, and Europe and Central Asia, 13 percent. While rich countries have developed modern sources of energy, wood fuels are still the primary source of energy for approximately 2 billion people in poor countries. Solid biomass is associated with respiratory problems caused by indoor smoke. Most of the victims are infants, children, and women from poor rural families. Acute respiratory infections in children and chronic pulmonary disease in women are a common feature. Indoor smoke accounts for 3.6 percent of the burden of disease in developing countries with high mortality, following the lack of water supply and sanitation which accounts for 5.5 percent of death and illness. The data shows very little progress in the past 10 years. In low income countries, the use of biomass products and waste as a percent of total energy use has gone from 55 percent in 1992 to 49 percent in 2003. At the same time, livelihoods of the rural poor depend heavily on the ecosystem capacity to provide a sustained source of energy, and in some regions fuel wood crises may take place in the next decade with subsequent effects on ecosystems. Countries rich in fossil energy resources on an unsustainable trajectory
GA_googleFillSlot("news_160x600_inline");
Are countries saving enough for future growth? The Little Green Data Book shows that, by and large, countries with large endowments of fossil energy resources choose to consume rather than to invest the returns generated by energy resources. Sub-soil wealth is not being transformed into assets necessary to sustain growth. Countries such as Angola, Nigeria, and Venezuela, that enjoy high energy returns, have negative saving rates. In these countries, total wealth — the sum of man-made, natural, and human capital — is declining, posing serious risk on the sustainability of future growth rates. A negative savings rate implies that welfare will decline at some point in the future as a result of decisions made today. Sustainability in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa appears very low once traditional savings measures are adjusted to take into account the loss of natural capital. By contrast, East Asian economies, such as China and the Philippines, enjoy very high savings rates. For these countries, asset accumulation is a precondition for future growth. Commenting on how the LGDB is developed, Eric Swanson, Program Manager for global monitoring in the World Bank's Development Data Group, says that, "The Little Green Data Book is the World Bank's comprehensive guide to environmental statistics. With data for 48 indicators in 222 countries, territories, and regions, it provides a statistical portrait of the state of the world and the impact of human activity." The Little Green Data Book draws on the World Bank's recently released World Development Indicators database and makes key development indicators widely available to a global audience.
google_protectAndRun("render_ads.js::google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
The rapidly expanding economies of China and India are showing a swift increase in CO2 emissions. China, which is already the second largest polluter, has increased its emissions by 33 percent between 1992 and 2002, while India's emissions have grown 57 percent in the same period. This trend will likely continue as economic activity grows. Such an increase in emissions has taken place despite improvements in energy efficiency by China in the last decade. In 1992, a dollar of GDP was associated with the production of 4.8Kg of CO2. In 2002, every dollar of GDP was associated with 2.5Kg of CO2. Still, CO2 emissions stem mainly from rich countries, with the United States contributing 24 percent of total emissions and the countries of the European Monetary Union contributing 10 percent. But the share of developing country contributions to CO2 emissions is rapidly increasing. From 2000 to 2002, global CO2 emissions increased by 2.5 percent annually, and about two-thirds of this increase came from low and middle income countries. According to Steen Jorgensen, Acting Vice-President for Sustainable Development at the World Bank, "This reality shows us that we need to find creative ways to engage all major economies of the world to solve a global problem such as climate change. The recently launched Investment Framework for Clean Energy and Development is an attempt by the World Bank to contribute in this direction."
Jorgensen was referring to a new approach — the Clean Energy & Development: Towards an Investment Framework — recently endorsed by the Governors of the World Bank designed to boost energy investments while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. "All countries are vulnerable to climate change," says Warren Evans, Environment Director, World Bank, "but the poorest countries are the most exposed, and have the least means to adapt to it. Climate change may hamper efforts to reduce poverty in agriculture-dependent countries in Africa and low-lying coastal areas. Climate proofing development initiatives is an urgent need in order to avoid human disasters." CO2 emissions stem mainly from the combustion of fossil fuels. The energy sector accounts for about 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and the agricultural sector for most of the remaining 20 percent (source: Clean Energy and Development: Towards an Investment Framework, the World Bank, April 23, 2006). "Coal is by far the main source of energy for electricity generation," says Jamal Saghir, Director Energy & Water, World Bank. "The relevance of coal has increased over time, particularly in low-income countries where the share of electricity generated by coal has shifted from 41 percent in 1990 to 46 percent in 2003. In China, the use of coal has increased from 71 percent in 1990 to 79 percent in 2003. In India, the increment has been from 65 percent to 68 percent." Energy use per capita is highest in rich countries, which consume on average 11 times more energy per person than low income countries. High income countries in total use 51 percent of the world's energy production, followed by East Asia and Pacific, 18 percent, and Europe and Central Asia, 13 percent. While rich countries have developed modern sources of energy, wood fuels are still the primary source of energy for approximately 2 billion people in poor countries. Solid biomass is associated with respiratory problems caused by indoor smoke. Most of the victims are infants, children, and women from poor rural families. Acute respiratory infections in children and chronic pulmonary disease in women are a common feature. Indoor smoke accounts for 3.6 percent of the burden of disease in developing countries with high mortality, following the lack of water supply and sanitation which accounts for 5.5 percent of death and illness. The data shows very little progress in the past 10 years. In low income countries, the use of biomass products and waste as a percent of total energy use has gone from 55 percent in 1992 to 49 percent in 2003. At the same time, livelihoods of the rural poor depend heavily on the ecosystem capacity to provide a sustained source of energy, and in some regions fuel wood crises may take place in the next decade with subsequent effects on ecosystems. Countries rich in fossil energy resources on an unsustainable trajectory
GA_googleFillSlot("news_160x600_inline");
Are countries saving enough for future growth? The Little Green Data Book shows that, by and large, countries with large endowments of fossil energy resources choose to consume rather than to invest the returns generated by energy resources. Sub-soil wealth is not being transformed into assets necessary to sustain growth. Countries such as Angola, Nigeria, and Venezuela, that enjoy high energy returns, have negative saving rates. In these countries, total wealth — the sum of man-made, natural, and human capital — is declining, posing serious risk on the sustainability of future growth rates. A negative savings rate implies that welfare will decline at some point in the future as a result of decisions made today. Sustainability in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa appears very low once traditional savings measures are adjusted to take into account the loss of natural capital. By contrast, East Asian economies, such as China and the Philippines, enjoy very high savings rates. For these countries, asset accumulation is a precondition for future growth. Commenting on how the LGDB is developed, Eric Swanson, Program Manager for global monitoring in the World Bank's Development Data Group, says that, "The Little Green Data Book is the World Bank's comprehensive guide to environmental statistics. With data for 48 indicators in 222 countries, territories, and regions, it provides a statistical portrait of the state of the world and the impact of human activity." The Little Green Data Book draws on the World Bank's recently released World Development Indicators database and makes key development indicators widely available to a global audience.
Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C
More than 100 countries have adopted a global warming limit of 2 °C or below (relative to pre-industrial levels) as a guiding principle for mitigation efforts to reduce climate change risks, impacts and damages1, 2. However, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions corresponding to a specified maximum warming are poorly known owing to uncertainties in the carbon cycle and the climate response. Here we provide a comprehensive probabilistic analysis aimed at quantifying GHG emission budgets for the 2000–50 period that would limit warming throughout the twenty-first century to below 2 °C, based on a combination of published distributions of climate system properties and observational constraints. We show that, for the chosen class of emission scenarios, both cumulative emissions up to 2050 and emission levels in 2050 are robust indicators of the probability that twenty-first century warming will not exceed 2 °C relative to pre-industrial temperatures. Limiting cumulative CO2 emissions over 2000–50 to 1,000 Gt CO2 yields a 25% probability of warming exceeding 2 °C—and a limit of 1,440 Gt CO2 yields a 50% probability—given a representative estimate of the distribution of climate system properties. As known 2000–06 CO2 emissions3 were 234 Gt CO2, less than half the proven economically recoverable oil, gas and coal reserves4, 5, 6 can still be emitted up to 2050 to achieve such a goal. Recent G8 Communiqués7 envisage halved global GHG emissions by 2050, for which we estimate a 12–45% probability of exceeding 2 °C—assuming 1990 as emission base year and a range of published climate sensitivity distributions. Emissions levels in 2020 are a less robust indicator, but for the scenarios considered, the probability of exceeding 2 °C rises to 53–87% if global GHG emissions are still more than 25% above 2000 levels in 2020.
Global Warming: Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would Save Arctic Ice, Reduce Sea Level Rise
The threat of global warming can still be greatly diminished if nations cut emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases by 70 percent this century, according to a new analysis. While global temperatures would rise, the most dangerous potential aspects of climate change, including massive losses of Arctic sea ice and permafrost and significant sea level rise, could be partially avoided.
The study, led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), will be published next week in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor.
"This research indicates that we can no longer avoid significant warming during this century," says NCAR scientist Warren Washington, the lead author. "But if the world were to implement this level of emission cuts, we could stabilize the threat of climate change and avoid catastrophe."
Avoiding dangerous climate change
Average global temperatures have warmed by close to 1 degree Celsius (almost 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the pre-industrial era. Much of the warming is due to human-produced emissions of greenhouse gases, predominantly carbon dioxide. This heat-trapping gas has increased from a pre-industrial level of about 284 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere to more than 380 ppm today.
With research showing that additional warming of about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F) may be the threshold for dangerous climate change, the European Union has called for dramatic cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The U.S. Congress is also debating the issue.
To examine the impact of such cuts on the world's climate, Washington and his colleagues ran a series of global supercomputer studies with the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model. They assumed that carbon dioxide levels could be held to 450 ppm at the end of this century. That figure comes from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, which has cited 450 ppm as an attainable target if the world quickly adapts conservation practices and new green technologies to cut emissions dramatically. In contrast, emissions are now on track to reach about 750 ppm by 2100 if unchecked.
The team's results showed that if carbon dioxide were held to 450 ppm, global temperatures would increase by 0.6 degrees C (about 1 degree F) above current readings by the end of the century. In contrast, the study showed that temperatures would rise by almost four times that amount, to 2.2 degrees C (4 degrees F) above current readings, if emissions were allowed to continue on their present course.
Holding carbon dioxide levels to 450 ppm would have other impacts, according to the climate modeling study:
Sea level rise due to thermal expansion as water temperatures warmed would be 14 centimeters (about 5.5 inches) instead of 22 centimeters (8.7 inches). Significant additional sea level rise would be expected in either scenario from melting ice sheets and glaciers.
Arctic ice in the summertime would shrink by about a quarter in volume and stabilize by 2100, as opposed to shrinking at least three-quarters and continuing to melt. Some research has suggested the summertime ice will disappear altogether this century if emissions continue on their current trajectory.
Arctic warming would be reduced by almost half, helping preserve fisheries and populations of sea birds and Arctic mammals in such regions as the northern Bering Sea.
Significant regional changes in precipitation, including decreased precipitation in the U.S. Southwest and an increase in the U.S. Northeast and Canada, would be cut in half if emissions were kept to 450 ppm.
The climate system would stabilize by about 2100, instead of continuing to warm.
The research team used supercomputer simulations to compare a business-as-usual scenario to one with dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions beginning in about a decade. The authors stressed that they were not studying how such cuts could be achieved nor advocating a particular policy.
"Our goal is to provide policymakers with appropriate research so they can make informed decisions," Washington says. "This study provides some hope that we can avoid the worst impacts of climate change--if society can cut emissions substantially over the next several decades and continue major cuts through the century."
The study, led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), will be published next week in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor.
"This research indicates that we can no longer avoid significant warming during this century," says NCAR scientist Warren Washington, the lead author. "But if the world were to implement this level of emission cuts, we could stabilize the threat of climate change and avoid catastrophe."
Avoiding dangerous climate change
Average global temperatures have warmed by close to 1 degree Celsius (almost 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the pre-industrial era. Much of the warming is due to human-produced emissions of greenhouse gases, predominantly carbon dioxide. This heat-trapping gas has increased from a pre-industrial level of about 284 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere to more than 380 ppm today.
With research showing that additional warming of about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F) may be the threshold for dangerous climate change, the European Union has called for dramatic cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The U.S. Congress is also debating the issue.
To examine the impact of such cuts on the world's climate, Washington and his colleagues ran a series of global supercomputer studies with the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model. They assumed that carbon dioxide levels could be held to 450 ppm at the end of this century. That figure comes from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, which has cited 450 ppm as an attainable target if the world quickly adapts conservation practices and new green technologies to cut emissions dramatically. In contrast, emissions are now on track to reach about 750 ppm by 2100 if unchecked.
The team's results showed that if carbon dioxide were held to 450 ppm, global temperatures would increase by 0.6 degrees C (about 1 degree F) above current readings by the end of the century. In contrast, the study showed that temperatures would rise by almost four times that amount, to 2.2 degrees C (4 degrees F) above current readings, if emissions were allowed to continue on their present course.
Holding carbon dioxide levels to 450 ppm would have other impacts, according to the climate modeling study:
Sea level rise due to thermal expansion as water temperatures warmed would be 14 centimeters (about 5.5 inches) instead of 22 centimeters (8.7 inches). Significant additional sea level rise would be expected in either scenario from melting ice sheets and glaciers.
Arctic ice in the summertime would shrink by about a quarter in volume and stabilize by 2100, as opposed to shrinking at least three-quarters and continuing to melt. Some research has suggested the summertime ice will disappear altogether this century if emissions continue on their current trajectory.
Arctic warming would be reduced by almost half, helping preserve fisheries and populations of sea birds and Arctic mammals in such regions as the northern Bering Sea.
Significant regional changes in precipitation, including decreased precipitation in the U.S. Southwest and an increase in the U.S. Northeast and Canada, would be cut in half if emissions were kept to 450 ppm.
The climate system would stabilize by about 2100, instead of continuing to warm.
The research team used supercomputer simulations to compare a business-as-usual scenario to one with dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions beginning in about a decade. The authors stressed that they were not studying how such cuts could be achieved nor advocating a particular policy.
"Our goal is to provide policymakers with appropriate research so they can make informed decisions," Washington says. "This study provides some hope that we can avoid the worst impacts of climate change--if society can cut emissions substantially over the next several decades and continue major cuts through the century."
Industry's Anti-Global Warming Misinformation Campaign Reminiscent of Big Tobacco's Strategy
The idea stated in the title of this blog post is not novel--far from it, in fact. We have known for a long time that the auto industry, the oil industry, and others with a vested interest have engaged in a long-running campaign of misinformation to discredit the science behind global warming. Manufacturing doubt is a common strategy employed by those whose agenda falls on the wrong side of scientific fact. This includes creationists, pseudoscientists, global warming denialists, HIV denialists, and, very notably, the tobacco industry's notorious decades-long campaign to deny the link between smoking and cancer, despite the deniers' own undeniable knowledge that such a link existed.
The reason I bring all of this up now, though, is that The New York Times has an article by Andrew Revkin about some particularly interesting documents recently acquired by the Times. The documents, from the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group), shed light on how the group suppressed its own scientists and demonstrate that the group was actively aware it was spreading misinformation:
For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
"The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood," the coalition said in a scientific "backgrounder" provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that "scientists differ" on the issue.
But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
"The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied," the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.
The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups
The reason I bring all of this up now, though, is that The New York Times has an article by Andrew Revkin about some particularly interesting documents recently acquired by the Times. The documents, from the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group), shed light on how the group suppressed its own scientists and demonstrate that the group was actively aware it was spreading misinformation:
For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
"The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood," the coalition said in a scientific "backgrounder" provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that "scientists differ" on the issue.
But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
"The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied," the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.
The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups
Effects of Global Warming on Agriculture
It's not exactly clear why the '50s beatnik crowd thought the phrase "that's a gas, man" was cool. But today and in the future, ever-increasing amounts of gas—carbon dioxide, methane, and all the other members of the greenhouse gas gang—are likely to make the planet anything but cool. The climate effects will be far reaching, from higher electricity costs to soaring prices for the Spam and mashed potatoes on your plate.
Today's article explores not only the coming effects of global warming on agriculture, but also the impact that farming and agriculture are having on global warming. That is, how much are agriculture and food operations contributing to global climate change? And how at-risk is our food-production system from the effects of global warming?
We're fortunate to have a great guest article on this subject from Guillermo Payet of LocalHarvest, a web site that helps people find farmers markets, CSAs, and other local food sources in their area.
~ ~ ~
Climate Change and Farming by Guillermo Payet, LocalHarvest
The earth's climate has been relatively stable for thousands of years. We know intuitively that it is hot, humid, and rainy in the Amazon, and that corn grows well in the US Midwest. We know that at a particular altitude we should plant a crop during a certain week of the year because conditions for it are just right then. For most of our memory as humans, our climates have closely oscillated around predictable patterns, and this has allowed us to feed ourselves and flourish.
When a stable climate system is modified beyond its "tipping point," it gets out of balance and loses its equilibrium. While the system searches for a new set of patterns to stabilize around, variability and uncertainly are the norm. This, in essence, is the nature of the challenge that we are now facing.
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON AGRICULTURE
Agriculture's Contribution to Global Climate Change
Agriculture is one of the most weather-dependent of all human activities. It is ironic, then, that a significant percentage of greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. Fossil fuel-intensive agriculture is contributing to the creation of the unpredictable weather conditions that all farmers will need to battle in the not-too-distant future
The Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s allowed us to increase yields by "borrowing" solar energy from the past in the form of fossil-fuel-based fertilizers and pesticides. When one adds in the oil used for processing and packaging foods and for refrigerating and shipping them long distances, it's easy to see how the food industry consumes about 20% of all the oil used in the US.
About 1% of the world's annual energy usage goes into the production of fertilizers. This might not seem like much, but it ties the price of food to that of natural gas, and will make food prices shoot up once energy supplies start to dwindle.
FOOD GIVING US GAS(ES)? BLIMEY!
In the UK, food production and distribution account for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. The 18% is split fairly evenly between "on-the-farm emissions" (from farming activities) and "beyond-the-farm emissions" (from transportation and processing activities, etc.).
While we've all gotten used to carbon dioxide being the bad boy on the global warming block, agriculture's greenhouse-gas contributions include healthy shares of methane and nitrous oxide, both of which are more potent than CO2.
Finally, while production and transport of chemical fertilizers and pesticides lead directly to creation of greenhouse gases, use of these chemicals also does so indirectly by reducing farm soil's capacity to store carbon.
So, what to do? Go organic! United Kingdom's Environment Secretary notes that, in many cases, organic agriculture produces fewer greenhouse gases than conventional equivalents. There's a catch, though. Organic food transported long distances is NOT helpful. So, go organic AND local.
— Grinning Planet
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON AGRICULTURE
Agriculture—Bracing for Global Warming
We are already seeing some climate changes that may be indicative of what's to come for agriculture:
Maple syrup production in the American northeast is suffering. The climate in which maple trees thrive is expected to move about two degrees (of latitude) north to Canada. Maple syrup production is already down by about 10% because of warmer and shorter winters.
The southwestern United States is already experiencing a lack of water—without water for irrigation, this area is too dry for large-scale agriculture—and serious desertification is expected to happen within the next few decades. Conditions similar to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s are expected to be the norm in the area by the 2030s.
All over the country, we are seeing earlier bird migrations and northward shifts in the ranges of crops and pests.
We're also seeing increased peaks in spring run-off from glacier melt and snow-fed rivers.
Global-warming-related changes will affect the future of farming in myriad ways. Here are some examples:
The snow pack in California's Sierra Mountains has been gradually declining for the last 50 years, and the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report says that it could ultimately be reduced by 60% to 90%. This will result in a very serious lack of water for Central Valley farmers during the summer months. Southern California will be particularly hard hit.
A Colorado State University study shows that warming will cause Colorado's grazing lands to become less productive.
Florida is expected to get heavier rains and flooding, which will be hard on citrus and other crops.
Most importantly for the US economy and for the "mainstream" industrial food system, which is primarily "corn-fed," the latest climate models predict that it might become too hot and dry to grow corn in what is now called the Corn Belt.
DENTED BUMPER CROP
Scientists believe that higher carbon dioxide levels and temperatures may actually increase yields slightly—as long as the temperature increase is no more that a few degrees C. Beyond that, the warming effect dominates and crop yields decrease. Keeping in mind that, so far, observed global warming effects keep surpassing scientists expectations (in a bad way), it seems likely that rising temperatures in farming regions will wreak havoc on crop yields.
Less availability of irrigation water due to warmer temperatures will also be a big negative for dry areas. Many of our most productive farming areas depend heavily on irrigation. Further, there is a local cooling effect in irrigated areas (from evaporating water) that moderates temperatures, helping crops survive withering summer temps. Thus, less irrigation will exacerbate global-warming-driven temperature increases in water-short areas. And remember—40% of the world's food supply comes from the 2% of land that is dependent on irrigation.
On the other side of the water issue, global warming is expected to increase "severe weather events." That will be another blow to global agricultural output.
— Grinning Planet
Globally, yields for many of the world's main staple crops are bound to decline. A study by researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National Labs and Stanford University compared yields for the world's six main staple crops—wheat, rice, corn, soybeans, barley and sorghum—and found a 3% to 5% decline for every one degree of temperature increase. Those six crops account for at least 55% of non-meat calories consumed by people, and more than 70% of the world's animal feed. The IPCC's latest report estimates an average warming of between 3 and 11 degrees by the end of the century.
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON AGRICULTURE
It's Note Hopeless—We Haven't "Bought the Farm" Yet
The good news is that we can still do something about it. Supporting sustainable agriculture by buying from your local organic farms is a significant action to take. Many small farms are now developing highly productive farming systems with low environmental impact. These are the right kinds of farms for the future. We are likely to achieve better results by learning to collaborate with nature rather than using brute-force to bend it to our will, as is the norm with today's widespread industrial agriculture practices.
The type of food we eat is as important as how farmers grow our food. Eating "lower on the food chain"—getting less of our protein from meat and more from nuts, seeds, beans, legumes, grains, and vegetables—can make a huge difference in the energy consumption associated with our personal menus.
Regardless of what corporate marketeers tell us, we cannot "save the world by shopping." Global climate change will dictate that the over-consumption binge of the last 50 years will have to come to an end. Changes in our eating habits and food systems will be a part of much larger changes in our culture. Adapting to the coming changes and avoiding further harm will require us to abandon the principle of immediate gratification and once again learn the benefits of frugality, conservation of resources, and thinking and acting with future generations in mind.
Changing our diets to healthier, more sustainable foods is not as hard as you might think. As the author Michael Pollan says:
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
Add to that:
"Buy local and organic whenever possible."
Doing so will help reduce agriculture's effect on global warming and contribute to an overall healthier environment and better future
Today's article explores not only the coming effects of global warming on agriculture, but also the impact that farming and agriculture are having on global warming. That is, how much are agriculture and food operations contributing to global climate change? And how at-risk is our food-production system from the effects of global warming?
We're fortunate to have a great guest article on this subject from Guillermo Payet of LocalHarvest, a web site that helps people find farmers markets, CSAs, and other local food sources in their area.
~ ~ ~
Climate Change and Farming by Guillermo Payet, LocalHarvest
The earth's climate has been relatively stable for thousands of years. We know intuitively that it is hot, humid, and rainy in the Amazon, and that corn grows well in the US Midwest. We know that at a particular altitude we should plant a crop during a certain week of the year because conditions for it are just right then. For most of our memory as humans, our climates have closely oscillated around predictable patterns, and this has allowed us to feed ourselves and flourish.
When a stable climate system is modified beyond its "tipping point," it gets out of balance and loses its equilibrium. While the system searches for a new set of patterns to stabilize around, variability and uncertainly are the norm. This, in essence, is the nature of the challenge that we are now facing.
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON AGRICULTURE
Agriculture's Contribution to Global Climate Change
Agriculture is one of the most weather-dependent of all human activities. It is ironic, then, that a significant percentage of greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. Fossil fuel-intensive agriculture is contributing to the creation of the unpredictable weather conditions that all farmers will need to battle in the not-too-distant future
The Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s allowed us to increase yields by "borrowing" solar energy from the past in the form of fossil-fuel-based fertilizers and pesticides. When one adds in the oil used for processing and packaging foods and for refrigerating and shipping them long distances, it's easy to see how the food industry consumes about 20% of all the oil used in the US.
About 1% of the world's annual energy usage goes into the production of fertilizers. This might not seem like much, but it ties the price of food to that of natural gas, and will make food prices shoot up once energy supplies start to dwindle.
FOOD GIVING US GAS(ES)? BLIMEY!
In the UK, food production and distribution account for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. The 18% is split fairly evenly between "on-the-farm emissions" (from farming activities) and "beyond-the-farm emissions" (from transportation and processing activities, etc.).
While we've all gotten used to carbon dioxide being the bad boy on the global warming block, agriculture's greenhouse-gas contributions include healthy shares of methane and nitrous oxide, both of which are more potent than CO2.
Finally, while production and transport of chemical fertilizers and pesticides lead directly to creation of greenhouse gases, use of these chemicals also does so indirectly by reducing farm soil's capacity to store carbon.
So, what to do? Go organic! United Kingdom's Environment Secretary notes that, in many cases, organic agriculture produces fewer greenhouse gases than conventional equivalents. There's a catch, though. Organic food transported long distances is NOT helpful. So, go organic AND local.
— Grinning Planet
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON AGRICULTURE
Agriculture—Bracing for Global Warming
We are already seeing some climate changes that may be indicative of what's to come for agriculture:
Maple syrup production in the American northeast is suffering. The climate in which maple trees thrive is expected to move about two degrees (of latitude) north to Canada. Maple syrup production is already down by about 10% because of warmer and shorter winters.
The southwestern United States is already experiencing a lack of water—without water for irrigation, this area is too dry for large-scale agriculture—and serious desertification is expected to happen within the next few decades. Conditions similar to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s are expected to be the norm in the area by the 2030s.
All over the country, we are seeing earlier bird migrations and northward shifts in the ranges of crops and pests.
We're also seeing increased peaks in spring run-off from glacier melt and snow-fed rivers.
Global-warming-related changes will affect the future of farming in myriad ways. Here are some examples:
The snow pack in California's Sierra Mountains has been gradually declining for the last 50 years, and the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report says that it could ultimately be reduced by 60% to 90%. This will result in a very serious lack of water for Central Valley farmers during the summer months. Southern California will be particularly hard hit.
A Colorado State University study shows that warming will cause Colorado's grazing lands to become less productive.
Florida is expected to get heavier rains and flooding, which will be hard on citrus and other crops.
Most importantly for the US economy and for the "mainstream" industrial food system, which is primarily "corn-fed," the latest climate models predict that it might become too hot and dry to grow corn in what is now called the Corn Belt.
DENTED BUMPER CROP
Scientists believe that higher carbon dioxide levels and temperatures may actually increase yields slightly—as long as the temperature increase is no more that a few degrees C. Beyond that, the warming effect dominates and crop yields decrease. Keeping in mind that, so far, observed global warming effects keep surpassing scientists expectations (in a bad way), it seems likely that rising temperatures in farming regions will wreak havoc on crop yields.
Less availability of irrigation water due to warmer temperatures will also be a big negative for dry areas. Many of our most productive farming areas depend heavily on irrigation. Further, there is a local cooling effect in irrigated areas (from evaporating water) that moderates temperatures, helping crops survive withering summer temps. Thus, less irrigation will exacerbate global-warming-driven temperature increases in water-short areas. And remember—40% of the world's food supply comes from the 2% of land that is dependent on irrigation.
On the other side of the water issue, global warming is expected to increase "severe weather events." That will be another blow to global agricultural output.
— Grinning Planet
Globally, yields for many of the world's main staple crops are bound to decline. A study by researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National Labs and Stanford University compared yields for the world's six main staple crops—wheat, rice, corn, soybeans, barley and sorghum—and found a 3% to 5% decline for every one degree of temperature increase. Those six crops account for at least 55% of non-meat calories consumed by people, and more than 70% of the world's animal feed. The IPCC's latest report estimates an average warming of between 3 and 11 degrees by the end of the century.
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON AGRICULTURE
It's Note Hopeless—We Haven't "Bought the Farm" Yet
The good news is that we can still do something about it. Supporting sustainable agriculture by buying from your local organic farms is a significant action to take. Many small farms are now developing highly productive farming systems with low environmental impact. These are the right kinds of farms for the future. We are likely to achieve better results by learning to collaborate with nature rather than using brute-force to bend it to our will, as is the norm with today's widespread industrial agriculture practices.
The type of food we eat is as important as how farmers grow our food. Eating "lower on the food chain"—getting less of our protein from meat and more from nuts, seeds, beans, legumes, grains, and vegetables—can make a huge difference in the energy consumption associated with our personal menus.
Regardless of what corporate marketeers tell us, we cannot "save the world by shopping." Global climate change will dictate that the over-consumption binge of the last 50 years will have to come to an end. Changes in our eating habits and food systems will be a part of much larger changes in our culture. Adapting to the coming changes and avoiding further harm will require us to abandon the principle of immediate gratification and once again learn the benefits of frugality, conservation of resources, and thinking and acting with future generations in mind.
Changing our diets to healthier, more sustainable foods is not as hard as you might think. As the author Michael Pollan says:
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
Add to that:
"Buy local and organic whenever possible."
Doing so will help reduce agriculture's effect on global warming and contribute to an overall healthier environment and better future
5 Deadliest Effects of Global Warming
Green house gases stay can stay in the atmosphere for an amount of years ranging from decades to hundreds and thousands of years. No matter what we do, global warming is going to have some effect on Earth. Here are the 5 deadliest effects of global warming.
5. Spread of diseaseAs northern countries warm, disease carrying insects migrate north, bringing plague and disease with them. Indeed some scientists believe that in some countries thanks to global warming, malaria has not been fully eradicated
2. Economic consequencesMost of the effects of anthropogenic global warming won’t be good. And these effects spell one thing for the countries of the world: economic consequences. Hurricanes cause do billions of dollars in damage, diseases cost money to treat and control and conflicts exacerbate all of these
. Polar ice caps meltingThe ice caps melting is a four-pronged danger.
First, it will raise sea levels. There are 5,773,000 cubic miles of water in ice caps, glaciers, and permanent snow. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, if all glaciers melted today the seas would rise about 230 feet. Luckily, that’s not going to happen all in one go! But sea levels will rise.
Second, melting ice caps will throw the global ecosystem out of balance. The ice caps are fresh water, and when they melt they will desalinate the ocean, or in plain English - make it less salty. The desalinization of the gulf current will “screw up” ocean currents, which regulate temperatures. The stream shutdown or irregularity would cool the area around north-east America and Western Europe. Luckily, that will slow some of the other effects of global warming in that area!
Third, temperature rises and changing landscapes in the artic circle will endanger several species of animals. Only the most adaptable will survive.
Fourth, global warming could snowball with the ice caps gone. Ice caps are white, and reflect sunlight, much of which is relected back into space, further cooling Earth. If the ice caps melt, the only reflector is the ocean. Darker colors absorb sunlight, further warming the Earth.
5. Spread of diseaseAs northern countries warm, disease carrying insects migrate north, bringing plague and disease with them. Indeed some scientists believe that in some countries thanks to global warming, malaria has not been fully eradicated
2. Economic consequencesMost of the effects of anthropogenic global warming won’t be good. And these effects spell one thing for the countries of the world: economic consequences. Hurricanes cause do billions of dollars in damage, diseases cost money to treat and control and conflicts exacerbate all of these
. Polar ice caps meltingThe ice caps melting is a four-pronged danger.
First, it will raise sea levels. There are 5,773,000 cubic miles of water in ice caps, glaciers, and permanent snow. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, if all glaciers melted today the seas would rise about 230 feet. Luckily, that’s not going to happen all in one go! But sea levels will rise.
Second, melting ice caps will throw the global ecosystem out of balance. The ice caps are fresh water, and when they melt they will desalinate the ocean, or in plain English - make it less salty. The desalinization of the gulf current will “screw up” ocean currents, which regulate temperatures. The stream shutdown or irregularity would cool the area around north-east America and Western Europe. Luckily, that will slow some of the other effects of global warming in that area!
Third, temperature rises and changing landscapes in the artic circle will endanger several species of animals. Only the most adaptable will survive.
Fourth, global warming could snowball with the ice caps gone. Ice caps are white, and reflect sunlight, much of which is relected back into space, further cooling Earth. If the ice caps melt, the only reflector is the ocean. Darker colors absorb sunlight, further warming the Earth.
Cleaner and greener future their joint aim
A CLEANER, greener future for the next generation was the driving force behind a meeting held in Ballarat yesterday.
Emissions trading, renewable energy and incentives for farmers were also on the agenda, as opposition spokesman for environment Greg Hunt visited Ballarat.
Mr Hunt, Senator Julian McGauran, and representatives of Mount Alexander Sustainability Group met with members of Ballarat Renewable Energy and Zero Emissions to discuss the plan for the region.
Mr Hunt said the opposition was keen to support BREAZE for Ballarat to become Australia's leading solar city.
He also said it was important to look at ways farmers and local groups could benefit from trading schemes.
"We want people to be empowered, to have a role and a chance to participate," he said.
"There is enormous income potential for people in the district through solar power, wind, even hot rocks."
The meeting also discussed the vote on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, due to be held in the Senate in August.
The scheme proposes a reduction target of five to 25 per cent by 2020, which BREAZE member Andrew Bray said was not good enough.
"We believe those targets are not ambitious enough and it has been acknowledged that the targets that developed countries set are insufficient to keep us below two degrees of warming," he said.
"It's time for countries like ours to step up."
Members from MASG attended the meeting to share ideas about how communities can utilise alternative energy sources.
MASG chair Jim Norris said the group had an alliance with BREAZE and was working towards a common goal.
"We need the Federal Government to come on board to work towards a cleaner, greener future for our kids," he said.
Emissions trading, renewable energy and incentives for farmers were also on the agenda, as opposition spokesman for environment Greg Hunt visited Ballarat.
Mr Hunt, Senator Julian McGauran, and representatives of Mount Alexander Sustainability Group met with members of Ballarat Renewable Energy and Zero Emissions to discuss the plan for the region.
Mr Hunt said the opposition was keen to support BREAZE for Ballarat to become Australia's leading solar city.
He also said it was important to look at ways farmers and local groups could benefit from trading schemes.
"We want people to be empowered, to have a role and a chance to participate," he said.
"There is enormous income potential for people in the district through solar power, wind, even hot rocks."
The meeting also discussed the vote on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, due to be held in the Senate in August.
The scheme proposes a reduction target of five to 25 per cent by 2020, which BREAZE member Andrew Bray said was not good enough.
"We believe those targets are not ambitious enough and it has been acknowledged that the targets that developed countries set are insufficient to keep us below two degrees of warming," he said.
"It's time for countries like ours to step up."
Members from MASG attended the meeting to share ideas about how communities can utilise alternative energy sources.
MASG chair Jim Norris said the group had an alliance with BREAZE and was working towards a common goal.
"We need the Federal Government to come on board to work towards a cleaner, greener future for our kids," he said.
Increased wood mobilization from sustainable sources is possible, and necessary for a more renewable energy future?
There is significant potential to enhance the supply of wood from forests throughout Europe in a sustainable manner. Wood mobilization, for renewable energy and industrial raw materials, should be further encouraged as a contribution to a sustainable society. This was the overriding consensus of the workshop “Strategies for increased wood mobilization from sustainable sources” organized by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UNECE/FAO) with partners and held on 16-18 June 2009 in Grenoble, France.
At present, woody biomass accounts for more than half of renewable energies within the European Union. This contribution needs to be enhanced in scale if countries are to meet the ambitious renewable energy targets set by policymakers, notably 20% renewable energy by 2020 in European Union member States. The greatest potential for enlarging wood supply is vested in harvesting larger amounts of stem wood from forests and a greater part of forest biomass such as branches and tops of trees. In addition, mobilizing a greater share of post-consumer recovered wood as well as biomass from outside of forests, notably from agricultural or urban land, can also make an increasing important contribution.
Sustainability as the overriding principle of harvesting additional biomass must be assured, taking into account other forest ecosystem services such as biodiversity, watershed and land protection, overall climate change mitigation objectives, as well as social and economic considerations. Harvesting more from forests can be sustainable as long as it is below increment, only 60% of which is reached within Europe at present.
Kit Prins, Chief, UNECE/FAO Timber Section, summarizes the findings of the workshop: “There are an impressive number of actions already taken by industry and governments to develop and implement concrete measures for sustainable wood mobilization on the ground. Examples range from encouraging cooperation between forest owners, consolidating land ownership structures, establishing public-private partnerships and virtual marketplaces, to improving the accessibility of forests, in particular in mountain areas, and investment in infrastructure and logistics. Policymakers and industry throughout the region should be made aware of such best practices, assess their applicability, and encourage the development of local and regional mobilization strategies. As a prerequisite, they need to carry out an assessment of the wood resources potentially available, an effort which UNECE/FAO has supported, on the basis of its past research and studies on potential sustainable wood supply.”
Following the review of wood mobilization activities by policymakers and national-level actors during the workshop, a next step will be the development of good practice guidance on sustainable wood mobilization, an effort which UNECE/FAO, the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe and the European Commission, Directorate General Agriculture, have been requested to lead, together with partners. The results of this work should become available by the end of 2009, to serve as guidance for countries in developing renewable energies strategies and actions, notably the national renewable energy action plans to be drawn up by EU member States.
The workshop was organized as a joint effort by UNECE/FAO, the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, the European Forest Institute, Confederation of European Paper Industries, Confederation of European Private Forest Owners and the European State Forest Organization, the Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations/ General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives, and the European Network of Forest Entrepreneurs. The French Ministry of Agriculture was an important partner as the host country, as was CEMAGREF, the hosting institution.
At present, woody biomass accounts for more than half of renewable energies within the European Union. This contribution needs to be enhanced in scale if countries are to meet the ambitious renewable energy targets set by policymakers, notably 20% renewable energy by 2020 in European Union member States. The greatest potential for enlarging wood supply is vested in harvesting larger amounts of stem wood from forests and a greater part of forest biomass such as branches and tops of trees. In addition, mobilizing a greater share of post-consumer recovered wood as well as biomass from outside of forests, notably from agricultural or urban land, can also make an increasing important contribution.
Sustainability as the overriding principle of harvesting additional biomass must be assured, taking into account other forest ecosystem services such as biodiversity, watershed and land protection, overall climate change mitigation objectives, as well as social and economic considerations. Harvesting more from forests can be sustainable as long as it is below increment, only 60% of which is reached within Europe at present.
Kit Prins, Chief, UNECE/FAO Timber Section, summarizes the findings of the workshop: “There are an impressive number of actions already taken by industry and governments to develop and implement concrete measures for sustainable wood mobilization on the ground. Examples range from encouraging cooperation between forest owners, consolidating land ownership structures, establishing public-private partnerships and virtual marketplaces, to improving the accessibility of forests, in particular in mountain areas, and investment in infrastructure and logistics. Policymakers and industry throughout the region should be made aware of such best practices, assess their applicability, and encourage the development of local and regional mobilization strategies. As a prerequisite, they need to carry out an assessment of the wood resources potentially available, an effort which UNECE/FAO has supported, on the basis of its past research and studies on potential sustainable wood supply.”
Following the review of wood mobilization activities by policymakers and national-level actors during the workshop, a next step will be the development of good practice guidance on sustainable wood mobilization, an effort which UNECE/FAO, the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe and the European Commission, Directorate General Agriculture, have been requested to lead, together with partners. The results of this work should become available by the end of 2009, to serve as guidance for countries in developing renewable energies strategies and actions, notably the national renewable energy action plans to be drawn up by EU member States.
The workshop was organized as a joint effort by UNECE/FAO, the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, the European Forest Institute, Confederation of European Paper Industries, Confederation of European Private Forest Owners and the European State Forest Organization, the Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations/ General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives, and the European Network of Forest Entrepreneurs. The French Ministry of Agriculture was an important partner as the host country, as was CEMAGREF, the hosting institution.
Australian scientists kill cancer cells with "trojan horse"
Australian scientists have developed a "trojan horse" therapy to combat cancer, using a bacterially-derived nano cell to penetrate and disarm the cancer cell before a second nano cell kills it with chemotherapy drugs.
The "trojan horse" therapy has the potential to directly target cancer cells with chemotherapy, rather than the current treatment that sees chemotherapy drugs injected into a cancer patient and attacking both cancer and healthy cells.
Sydney scientists Dr Jennifer MacDiarmid and Dr Himanshu Brahmbhatt, who formed EnGenelC Pty Ltd in 2001, said they had achieved 100 percent survival in mice with human cancer cells by using the "trojan horse" therapy in the past two years.
The scientists plan to start human clinical trials in the coming months. Human trials of the cell delivery system will start next week at the Peter MacCullum Cancer Center at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and The Austin at the University of Melbourne.
The therapy, published in the latest Nature Biotechnology journal, sees mini-cells called EDVs (EnGenelC Delivery Vehicle) attach and enter the cancer cell.
The first wave of mini-cells release ribonucleic acid molecules, called siRNA, which switch off the production of proteins that make the cancer cell resistant to chemotherapy.
A second wave of EDV cells is then accepted by the cancer cell and releases chemotherapy drugs, killing the cancer cell.
"The beauty is that our EDVs operate like 'Trojan Horses' They arrive at the gates of the affected cells and are always allowed in," said MacDiarmid.
We are playing the rogue cells at their own game. They switch-on the gene to produce the protein to resist drugs, and we are switching-off the gene which, in turn, enables the drugs to enter."
DISARMING TUMOUR CELLS
RNA interference, or RNAi, is designed to silence genes responsible for producing disease-causing proteins and is one of the hottest areas of biotechnology research. RNA was the basis of the 2006 Nobel Prize in medicine.
Dozens of biotechnology companies are looking for ways to manipulate RNA to block genes that produce disease-causing proteins involved in cancer, blindness or AIDS.
Brahmbhatt said that after treatment with conventional drug therapy, a large number of cancer cells die but a small percentage of the cells can produce proteins that make cancer cells resistant to chemotherapeutic drugs.
"Consequently, follow-up drug treatments can fail. The tumors thus become untreatable and continue to flourish, ultimately killing the patient," said Brahmbhatt.
"We want to be part of moving toward a time when cancers can be managed as a chronic disease rather than being regarded as a death sentence," he said.
The Nature report said the mini-cells were "well tolerated with no adverse side effects or deaths in any of the actively treated animals, despite repeated dosing."
"Significantly, our methodology does not damage the normal cells and is applicable to a wide spectrum of solid cancer types," said MacDiarmid
"The hope is that the benign nature of this EDV technology should enable cancer sufferers to get on with their lives and operate normally using out-patient therapy."
The "trojan horse" therapy has the potential to directly target cancer cells with chemotherapy, rather than the current treatment that sees chemotherapy drugs injected into a cancer patient and attacking both cancer and healthy cells.
Sydney scientists Dr Jennifer MacDiarmid and Dr Himanshu Brahmbhatt, who formed EnGenelC Pty Ltd in 2001, said they had achieved 100 percent survival in mice with human cancer cells by using the "trojan horse" therapy in the past two years.
The scientists plan to start human clinical trials in the coming months. Human trials of the cell delivery system will start next week at the Peter MacCullum Cancer Center at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and The Austin at the University of Melbourne.
The therapy, published in the latest Nature Biotechnology journal, sees mini-cells called EDVs (EnGenelC Delivery Vehicle) attach and enter the cancer cell.
The first wave of mini-cells release ribonucleic acid molecules, called siRNA, which switch off the production of proteins that make the cancer cell resistant to chemotherapy.
A second wave of EDV cells is then accepted by the cancer cell and releases chemotherapy drugs, killing the cancer cell.
"The beauty is that our EDVs operate like 'Trojan Horses' They arrive at the gates of the affected cells and are always allowed in," said MacDiarmid.
We are playing the rogue cells at their own game. They switch-on the gene to produce the protein to resist drugs, and we are switching-off the gene which, in turn, enables the drugs to enter."
DISARMING TUMOUR CELLS
RNA interference, or RNAi, is designed to silence genes responsible for producing disease-causing proteins and is one of the hottest areas of biotechnology research. RNA was the basis of the 2006 Nobel Prize in medicine.
Dozens of biotechnology companies are looking for ways to manipulate RNA to block genes that produce disease-causing proteins involved in cancer, blindness or AIDS.
Brahmbhatt said that after treatment with conventional drug therapy, a large number of cancer cells die but a small percentage of the cells can produce proteins that make cancer cells resistant to chemotherapeutic drugs.
"Consequently, follow-up drug treatments can fail. The tumors thus become untreatable and continue to flourish, ultimately killing the patient," said Brahmbhatt.
"We want to be part of moving toward a time when cancers can be managed as a chronic disease rather than being regarded as a death sentence," he said.
The Nature report said the mini-cells were "well tolerated with no adverse side effects or deaths in any of the actively treated animals, despite repeated dosing."
"Significantly, our methodology does not damage the normal cells and is applicable to a wide spectrum of solid cancer types," said MacDiarmid
"The hope is that the benign nature of this EDV technology should enable cancer sufferers to get on with their lives and operate normally using out-patient therapy."
'Rain lashes state but monsoon yet to arrive'
The mercury took a downward swing as overnight rain lashed various parts of the state, giving respite from the hot and humid weather. However, western Rajasthan is still reeling under intense heat conditions with no sight of rain. Although various parts in southern and eastern Rajasthan witnessed scattered and moderate rainfall, the meteorological department said monsoon is yet to arrive in the state. Despite the fact that districts, including Jaipur, Chittorgarh, Udaipur, Bhilwara, Ajmer, Sawai Madhopur and Banswara witnessed light to moderate rainfall in the past 48 hours, the Met department maintained that it was pre-monsoon rains. "It is pre-monsoon showers across the state as the monsoon has just hit Gujarat and is likely to move ahead in the next 24 hours," a met office told DNA on Sunday. Jaipurities woke up to a pleasant morning and light downpour as the temperature dipped in the morning hours. However, various colonies in the city faced acute power crisis on Sunday following the rains. People living in various residential colonies kept calling the call centres of Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited (JVNL) and complained of poor response as teams attending to various calls took almost two to three hours to rectify the technical snags. Meanwhile, western Rajasthan is still reeling under hot conditions with Sriganganagar recording a maximum temperature of 46 degree Celsius. Sriganganagar was followed by Churu at 45 degree Celsius, Bikan...
Long-billed vulture ready to soar high
The harbingers of bad news, vultures have brought some good news for wildlife conservationists. It seems the near extinct long-billed vultures (Gyps Indicus) are making a comeback to the state and Bisalpur Conservation Reserve in particular, where four of the bird species have been spotted recently. Local foresters claimed to have seen a group of four such vultures on a hilltop near the Bisalpur dam. One of them was found in a critical condition by a local forest guard who picked it up and arranged for medication and regular meat.Ornithologists and environmentalists say that the species is nearing extinction in the state with a few long-billed vultures also vanishing during the last bird flu season. The species has been included in the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) red list of threatened animals. The long-billed vultures are one of the 20 most endangered birds in the world.Although there is dedicated government fund for the conservation and breeding of these birds, forest guard Salim Khan and forester Ramesh Chandra Pareek of Toda Rai Singh locality in Tonk district had to pay from their own pockets to arrange injections, medicines and meat for the vulture. Such expenses are usually not reimbursed by the forest department.“I saw the vulture lying on the banks of Banas river near Bisalpur dam. I thought it to be some normal bird hit by some human or other birds but later I came to know about its importance. We have be...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)